Does being inclusive make logical, rational sense?

How would being “inclusive” actually work?

A dictionary definition is as follows:

not excluding any section of society or any party.

(of language) deliberately non-sexist, especially avoiding the use of masculine pronouns to cover both men and women.

Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Let’s look at two examples.

One obvious one is that no one should be excluded based on their race, ethnic origin, or color of skin. There is nothing that anyone can do about where they were born and what the color of their skin is. Everyone is a part of the same race since we all came from Adam and Eve.

How does it work though when the issue relates to a person’s beliefs? For example, when there are mutually exclusive views, how can you be inclusive? If one person believes that there is no god and another person believes that there is one or more gods, then being inclusive would logically mean that each person can believe what they want, whether it is true or not. It must necessarily also mean that one is right, and the other is wrong since it is a logical fallacy for there to be no god at the same time as one or more gods. It does not mean though that you need to agree with them. If you were to agree, you would be believing two contradictory things. It should also mean that there can be civil, rational dialogue to discuss the issue.

In today’s society, inclusiveness has changed meaning. It is no longer accepting the other person and being able to have different opinions. It now means that you must agree with the other person. We note that this is very one-sided. Typically, it means that:

  • The Big Bang, evolutionary hypothesis is considered true.
  • All religion is just a man-made idea.
  • You cannot disagree with any liberal or left-wing ideas.
  • All conservative and religious people can be discriminated against.
  • Anyone that does not agree and accept liberal doctrine is wrong and bad.
  • Anyone that challenges liberal doctrine must be cancelled and attacked.

Obviously, the left, even though it claims to be inclusive is not. If it were, it would need to accept all ideas and embrace those with opposing ideas and not condemn them. Inclusiveness presupposes different or opposing ideas. Anyone that is truly inclusive, cannot make any value judgements or have any opinions at all. As soon as anything is called right or wrong, a person is no longer “inclusive”. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who is truly inclusive.

There is a somewhat hidden issue that needs to be looked at. Who determines truth, right and wrong? While this topic would take a lot to really expound, we will just look at the real basics. Either people can determine right and wrong or the creator of the universe determines it. If people can determine right or wrong, which person or group of people determine it? Looking at our world today and all of history, there are, and have been many different ideas of right and wrong. Hitler and Stalin had their ideas, Mother Teresa had her ideas and each person in the world has their own standard of right and wrong. Based on this, to have a true standard of right and wrong, it needs to be true at all times and in all places. Also, the source of the standard must have the position of authority to impose the standard. We see then that the only legitimate source for the standard of right and wrong is the creator.

Being “inclusive” violates logic, since being “inclusive” in the way that is being proclaimed nowadays would require accepting contradictory ideas. We also see that no human has the authority to determine the standard of what is right or wrong. Doing so would mean that the person is elevating themselves above everyone else and essentially assuming the position of God. In fact, making any judgement calls about any topic automatically means that you are no longer inclusive in the true sense of the word. Those that are promoting inclusivity and demanding that others change their thinking are violating their own standard and putting themselves in the place of God.

The conclusion is that, if there is going to be any right or wrong, you cannot have “inclusivity”. Since the Big Bang, evolutionary theory violates several key scientific laws, it cannot be true, therefore, right, and wrong are determined by the creator. The creator has communicated his precepts so we must act and judge according to these laws. God has set out the way that leads to eternal life and has spelled out what leads to eternal punishment in the lake of fire. If you accept behaviour and thinking that violates the standard that God has put into place, you would then be giving people a false sense of security and be complicit in their condemnation. Jesus Christ came and paid the penalty for our sin through His death and resurrection on the cross. It remains for us to acknowledge and repent of our sins and accept the payment that He has provided so that we can be reconciled to God and obtain eternal life. True love for other people will mean sharing the truth of God and what it takes to obtain eternal life and avoid eternal punishment.


And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, (Heb. 9:27)


“Scripture quotations taken from the (NASB®) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.